Inheritance Rights and Legal Limitations: A Significant Judicial Precedent.
 |
Inheritance Rights and Legal Limitations: A Significant Judicial Precedent |
وراثتی حقوق اور قانونی حدود: ایک اہم عدالتی نظیر
مقدمے کا پس منظر
ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ: ایک اہم نظیر
1. وراثتی حق کبھی ختم نہیں ہوتا:
2. انتقالِ وراثت حتمی نہیں:
3. حدودِ دعویٰ (Limitation) کا اطلاق:
4. مشترکہ ملکیت کا اصول
نتائج اور اثرات
حتمی تجزیہ
Must read Judgement
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 553 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN
Side Opponent : SECRETARY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS HASHIM KHAN TRUST, QUETTA
S. 52---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Mutation of inheritance ---Scope---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---inheritance ---Limitation---Contention of plaintiffs was that they had been deprived from inheritance by creating trust---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Suit property was mutated in the names of three sons excluding two daughters---Revenue of ficer only mentioned three sons but did not mention daughters of the deceased in the inheritance Mutation ---Right of succession would arise in favour of successors from the date of death of a person without any interruption and property would automatically vest in the persons having status of legal heirs---Time would not affect a right of inheritance accrued in favour of legal heir---Legal heirs would become co-owners and co-sharers of property left by the deceased irrespective of the fact that who was in possession---Possession of one co-sharer was deemed to be possession of all co-sharers---Possession would neither oust the legal heirs from their entitlement nor it would make a person in possession the exclusive owner of such property---Entry in the Mutation was not a document of title but was a presumptive piece of evidence for establishment of the same---Presumption of truth would attach to the entries in the revenue record but such presumption was rebutable---Entry recorded in the revenue record could be challenged on having knowledge of the same or if a person did not consider himself to be aggrieved of such entry but having an interest in it could approach a court when he became aggrieved of such entry or someone had denied his right---Date of recording entry would not be the starting point for running of the time for filing a suit for declaration instead when grievance arose would be the relevant time---Option would lie with the person for filing a suit for declaration when his right was denied and every denial of right would furnish a fresh cause of action---Such right was to be exercised within a period of six years on accrual of cause of action---Time in a suit for declaration should be counted from when the right to sue accrued and same was refused by the other party and date of entry in the Mutation would be immaterial---Span of time would neither extinguish right of inheritance nor adverse to the title of legal heir---Possession of one legal heir was deemed to be possession of all the legal heirs---Right of inheritance was established by the plaintiffs and shares of all the legal heirs were to be determined and satisfied---Claim of plaintiffs was based on the right of inheritance , therefore neither time would affect the same nor there would be any question of limitation---Suit of plaintiffs was maintainable---Trial Court decided the case on mere presumptions---Plaintiffs could not be deprived of their right due to lapse of time---High Court framed the issues and remanded the case to the Trial Court with the direction to implead the Provincial Government and then decide the same---Appeal was accepted accordingly